LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLES AND THEIR CONSECUTIVE SPEAKING TASKS OF INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS HERYYUFRIZAL

(1)

Asian Academic Research Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities

HERYYUFRIZAL1; SULASTRI2; MUHAMMAD SUKIRLAN3 1 learning style specification are compatible with students‘ oral performance. The oral performance comprises three quantitative aspects of interaction: length means of time of speaking, number of turns taking, and the number of c-unit; and the quality of interaction. two tasks for students with concrete learning style, two tasks for authority oriented learners, and two tasks for analytic learners. The research was undertaken in a private tertiary education involving first year students who learn English as a compulsory subject. A 40-item questionnaire adapted from Yufrizal (2007) was distrubuted to 61 students resulting students with four learning styles: communicative, concrete, authority oriented and analytic. One group repeated measures design was carried out in this research. Four students from each learning categories were assigned to accomplish the tasks designed. All of the interactions were recorded, trancribed and coded for the analysis. The results show that there is a significant difference among tasks design based on students‘ learning style in terms of students‘ speaking quantity, but there is no significant difference among tasks on the quality of students‘ speaking.Although there is no difference of students‘ quantity and quality in speaking among students with different learning style and the speaking task, the researcher found that there is a relative different of students‘ quantity and quality in speaking among students with different learning style and the speaking task. It can be seen from the fluctuation when they do the interaction.

Keywords: speaking task, quantity and quality of students‘ speaking, willing classifications

(2)

Introduction

Learning styles have been one of the many kinds of individual differences that affect learning besides other important variables such as age, aptitude, general intelligence, motivation and socio-cultural factors (Skehan, 1989). Reid (1989) suggests that learning style is an important factor in several areas including learners‘ academic achievement, how learners learn and teachers teach, and learner- teacher interaction. This significant role of learning styles could be attributed to the fact that after better self awareness of what learning styles they have, learners and teachers would try more organized and effective approaches to their learning and teaching process, respectively; it is consistent with the logic of lifelong learning that suggest that learners‘ motivation to learn will be elevated if they know more about their own strengths and weaknesses as learners (Coffield et.al, 2004). Dissimilarity of the ways learners is essential that teacher should recognize the learning style differences among their learners and teach in a manner in which all learning styles are considered, if possible.

Although learning styles inevitably differ among students in the classroom, Dunn and Dunn (1978) say that teachers should try to make changes in their classroom that will be beneficial to every learning style. Some of these changes include room redesign, the development of small-group techniques, and the development of classroom activity packages.

The kind of task type which is given by the teacher is also included into class room activity packages. If teachers can give students a kind of task that is relevant to their learning styles, the performances are usually better. When the learners‘ learning styles are matched congenial with the instructional styles, their motivation, performances, and attainments will be enhanced (Brown 1994).

Speaking task is an activity that requires learners to participate in a non-threatening environment, emphasis is on meaning, to arrive at an outcome but the outcome is not that important, involvement in the process of learning is more important. Task is not a substitute for a good topic but it increases motivation and involvement. It provides a framework for the classroom activities.

(3)

writing English Achievement. Meanwhile, Nonetis‘ah (2007) who also focuses on her research in students‘ learning style found that there is a significant difference in English skill among students with concrete learning style with students who have learning style in communicative orientation instruction, analytical and students with a mixture of style. Claxon and Murrell (1987:52) in their research also found that students who were taught in ways that matched with their learning style obtained higher reading scores and viewed their educational experience more positively.

(Hamidah Yamat 2012) in their research shows that there is a significant positive correlation between the learners‘ English listening proficiency levels and their learning style preferences. Meanwhile Yachi Teng (2009) also shows that there is a relationship between reading methods and learning styles towards students' reading comprehension in English. Yufrizal et al (2015) found that there is a significant interaction among learning style, students‘ motivation and the achievement of English of students at the University of Lampung.

Different from the previous researches which have been conducted in writing learning models, reading comprehension, listening proficiency and student‘s English ability, the purposes of this study is to find out whether there is a significant interaction between specifically design task and learning style on the quantity and quality of students‘ speaking, to find out whether there is significant effect of different tasks on the quantity and quality of students‘ speaking, to find out whether there is significant effect of learning style on the quantity and quality of students‘ speaking.

2. Review of Literature

2.1.Students’ Preference in Learning

(4)

Learning styles may be defined in multiple ways, depending upon one‘s perspective. Here are a few definitions of learning styles. Brown (2000) defines learning styles as the manner in which individuals perceive and process information in learning situations. He argues that learning style preference is one aspect of learning style, and refers to the choice of one learning situation or condition over another. Celcia-Marcia (2001) defines learning styles as the general approaches—for example, global or analytic, auditory or visual—that students use in acquiring a new language or in learning any other subject. The manner in which a learner perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning environment. Each learner has his or her own learning style(s) that is (are) employed when doing a specific task. They learn in different ways; some tend to learn by seeing, others by hearing and some desire to learn on their own, while others prefer to learn by interacting with their peers (Riazi & Riasati, 2007).

A learning style is a student's consistent way of responding to and using stimuli in the context of learning. Keefe (1979) defines learning styles as the ―composite of characteristic cognitive, affective, and physiological factors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how a learner perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning environment. While according to Willing (1988), learning style is inherent and pervasive and is a blend of cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements. She stressed that an individual's learning style is an intrinsic and innate behavior that individual has in him which is influenced by several factors in their life that has caused them to have a particular learning style or preferences. Thus, learning styles are not really concerned with what learners learn, but rather how they prefer to learn.

Many people recognize that each person prefers different learning styles and techniques. Learning styles group common ways that people learn. Everyone has a mix of learning styles. Some people may find that they have a dominant style of learning, with far less use of the other styles. Others may find that they use different styles in different circumstances. There is no right mix. Nor are your styles fixed. You can develop ability in less dominant styles, as well as further develop styles that you already use well.

(5)

In fact, there is a stunning variety of learning styles. Most people possess a dominant or preferred learning style. Learning styles may also prove useful for helping students with mastering meta learning (being aware of and taking control of one's learning). However, one or more of these styles is usually dominant. This dominant style defines the best way for a person to learn new information. This style may not always be the same for all tasks. Learners may prefer one style of learning for one task, and a combination of others for another task

All these definitions of learning styles are directed towards the notion of the preferred ways applied by individuals to concentrate on, process, internalize and retain new information; a preferred way implies that it will be effective for those who prefer it, and less effective for those who prefer another learning style. However, non- preferred styles are not necessarily exclusive; they can be learned, although it would be probably hard, especially for those who have strong or extreme preferred styles.

2.2. The Task in Language Teaching

A task refers to a language learning effort that requires learners to comprehend, manipulate and produce target language as they perform the set task, involving real-world language (Richards, 1986). According to Willis (1998), tasks are activities in which the target language is used for a communicative purpose to achieve an outcome. On the other hand; Nunan (2004) uses the word ‗task‘ instead of ‗activity.‘ Ellis (2003) defines ―tasks‖ as activities that are primarily focused on meaning whereas exercises are activities that are primarily focused on form.

(6)

students‘ comprehensible input. Therefore the main purpose of identifying students' learning style preferences is to help the teachers design tasks that can facilitate students' learning.

3. Methodology

This research was quasi experimental research. One group repeated measures design was

carried out in this research. This kind of design was used since the tasks were administered to one group of students.

The subjects of the research are 16 students of Darmajaya Language Center (DLC) Institution out of 66 students who took part in answering the learning style questionnaire.

The procedures of this research were as follows: 1. Administering questionnaire

2. Determining the sampleof the research 3. Pre test

4. Preparing the task

5. Giving treatments

Validity and Reliability of the Instrument

In order to get a data which was valid and also reliable then the instrument of this

research had fulfilled the validity and reliability.

Validity

A test is considered valid if the test measure the object to be measured and suitable with

the criteria (Hatch and farhady, 1982: 250). In this research, to measure whether the test

had good validity or not, the researchers analyzed its content and construct validity.

a. Content Validity

Content validity means that the test is good reflection of what has been taught and the

knowledge which the teacher wants the students to know (Shohamy 1985: 74). It meant

that the items of the test presented the material has been discussed. Then, the test was

determined according to the materials that had been taught to the students. In other words,

(7)

the test had content validity since the test was good representation of material which

would be studied in the classroom. In this research the researchers used material which

had been included in students‘ module as the guide line for choosing the topic which

would be taught. The speaking taskswere made based on student‘s preference in leaning

such as concrete, communicative, authority, and analytical style.

b. Construct Validity

Construct validity was concerned with whether the test was actually in line with the theory

of what it meant to know the language (Shohamy, 1985; 74). It meant that the test items should really test the students or the test items should really measure the students‘ ability

in their speaking.

Regarding the construct validity, it measured whether the construction had already referred to

the theory, meaning that the test construction had already in line with the objective of the

learning (Hatch and Farhady, 1982: 251). Basically, the construct and content validity were

overlap. It was a representative of the material from the subject. In this research the tasks

which were given to the students were composed based on the theories of some experts and also experts‘ judgments in order to get construct validity.

Reliability

Since the researchers would find out the students‘ speaking in their quality and quantity then

the reliability of the instrument was also be seen in the term of quality and quantity of

speaking.

The quantity of interaction was measured in terms of C- unit produced by each speaker.

While for the quality of interaction was seen in terms of accuracy, fluency and comprehensibility. In order to make the instrument of students‘ speaking more reliable, inter-

(8)

4.Results and Discussion

4.1 The Identification of Student’s Learning Style

The Language Learning Questionnaire was distributed to a population which consisted of

61 students of DLC class. The result from questionnaire was analyzed by using SPSS

factorial statistical analysis to obtain the learning style category. In order to get the item

number of questionnaire with high correlation and match with the initial classification to

categorize of learning style participants preference, then the researchers factorized the item

number of questionnaire into factorial design. The result of the factorial design test was

summarized in the following table.

Table 4.1 Questionnaire Item for Each Learning Style

NO Learning Style Categorized The Item Number

1. Concrete 2, 13, 23 and 27

2. Communicative 3, 7, 24, 28 and 32

3. Authority 8, 17, 25 and 29

4. Analytical 10, 16, 18 and 27

Every students‘ answer to each question was assigned the relevant number (1 for concrete

categorize, 2 for communicative categorize, 3 for authority and 4 for analytical

categorize) and these were added up to yield a numerical total for each set. The set which

(9)

Table 4.2 The Number of Percentage of students and their Learning Style

NO Learning Style Categorize Number of Students Percentage

1. Concrete 8 students 13.11

2. Communicative 15 students 24.59

3. Authority 20 students 32,79

4. Analytical 6 students 9,84

5. Undecided 12 students 19,67

Total 61 students 100%

There are four types of students learning style based on Willing‘s classification (concrete,

communicative, authority and analytical). In this research the speaking task was designed by

considering those four types of learning style. The following table list the matrix table of task

design:

Table 4.1.4 Matrix of Design Task Based on Learning Style

No Learning Style Category Characteristic Task Design

1. Concrete Concrete learners employ very direct means of taking in and processing information. They disfavour learning monotonously and written work. They have strong desire to be entertained by using games, and enjoy conducting experiments, exploring and performing tasks

Speaking task design which involved into role play activities

(10)

4 Analytical Analytical learners prefer to analyze carefully structures and great interest in studying grammar, studying English book and reading news paper, studying alone, finding their own mistakes and working on problems set by the teacher.

Speaking task design which involved into problem solving activities

a. Task for Concrete students (Role Play)

Concrete students according to table matrix of design task based on learning style are the students who have strong desire to be entertained by using games, and enjoy conducting experiments, exploring and performing tasks, therefore in this research two kinds of speaking task in the form of role playing activity

b. Speaking Task for Communicative students (discussion group and Information Change)

Based on matrix table of design task based on learning style, communicative students are those who have a desire for a communicative learning approach, talking to friends in English and learning by conversation. Therefore in this, two tasks of communicative students were designed based on the students‘ characteristic: discussion group and information change.

c. Task for Authority students (memorizing drill and lecturing)

According to matrix table of design task above the authority students are learners who prefer the teacher to explain everything to them, to write everything in a notebook and depend on their teachers in learning. In this research two tasks for authority students were designed: memorizing drill and lecturing.

d. Speaking Task for Analytical students (problem solving)

(11)

The Effect of Task on the quantity of interaction

In order to see whether there is an effect of students‘ speaking quantity in term of C- unit

after being taught by using specifically task design the researchers analyzed it by using

statistical analysis. In this below is the table which shows the result of students‘ speaking in

term of quantity in C- unit.

Table 4.1.13 the Statistical Analysis of Students’ speaking Quantity

Sum of

Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Taskconc Between

Groups 13.047 3 4.349 1.133 .375

Within Groups 46.062 12 3.839

Total 59.109 15

Taskcomm Between

Groups 11.672 3 3.891 2.736 .090

Total 28.734 15

Taskautho Between

Groups 4.625 3 1.542 1.495 .266

Total 17.000 15

Taskanaly Between

Groups 8.172 3 2.724 1.441 .280

Total 30.859 15

From the table above we can see that F count for concrete task is 1.133 with 375 significant

level. Then F count for communicative task is 2.736 with 0.90 significant level. While F

count for authority task is 1.495 with 266 significant level. And the last F count for analytical

(12)

significant category (> 0.05) but it isn‘t significant yet. So from this result we can conclude that there is no significant effect of task in students‘ speaking quantity in term of c- unit.

Although there is no significant effect of task but there is a tendency of particular learning

style dominates the number of C- unit in their conversation. This tendency is shown by the

following figure:

Figure 3 The Students’ Speaking Quantity in Number of C- Unit

Note :

(13)

Figure 3 shows the means plot of students‘ speaking quantity in term number of C- unit from four different tasks. From these figures it can be seen that there is a tendency that communicative students have the greatest number of C- unit in their speaking when they are taught by using speaking tasks design such as concrete, communicative and authority speaking task design. However the students with concrete learning style have the greatest number of C- unit when they are taught by using analytical speaking task design.

Start from the first task there is speaking task design for concrete students. It can be seen that the students who has communicative learning style has the greatest number of C unit in their speaking. It is followed by analytical students in the second and concrete students in the third position. While authority learning style students have the lowest number of C unit in their speaking.

The next task is speaking task design for communicative students. It can be seen that those who have communicative learning style has the greatest number of C unit in their speaking, and it is followed with concrete students and analytical students which has similar number of C unit. While the authority learning style students have the lowest number of C unit in their speaking.

Then for the third task there is speaking task design for authority students. The students with communicative learning style still have the greatest number of C- unit in their speaking, and it is followed by concrete analytical students. While for authority students has the lowest number of C unit in their speaking.

The last task in term of number of C unit is speaking task design for analytical students. It can be seen that students with concrete learning style has the greatest number of C unit in their speaking. Communicative students and analytical students have similar position, while authority students have the lowest number of C unit in their speaking.

Therefore, it can be inferred that the students with communicative learning style has a tendency to have a greatest number of C- unit in their speaking among the other types of students with different learning style.

(14)

there‘s a tendency that communicative students dominate the quantity in their speaking, followed by students with concrete learning style in the second position, students with analytical learning style for the third position, and then there is students with authority in the last position.

a. The effect of Task in the quality of interaction

The statistical Analysis in this below is to see whether there is a significant effect of task on the students‘ speaking quality among four types of different learning style.

Table 4.1.14 the Statistical Analysis of Students’ speaking Quality

ANOVA

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

INRTERTASKCON Between Groups 11.094 3 3.698 6.544 .007

Within Groups _6.781 ₁₂ _.565

Total _17.875 ₁₅

INRTERTASKCOM Between Groups 5.891 3 1.964 1.969 .173

Within Groups 11.969 12 .997

Total 17.859 15

INRTERTASKAUTHO Between Groups 5.828 3 1.943 2.512 .108

Within Groups 9.281 12 .773

Total _15.109 ₁₅

INRTERTASKANALY Between Groups 6.293 3 2.098 2.180 .143

Within Groups _11.547 ₁₂ .962

(15)

From the table above we can see that F count for concrete task design based on the interater is 6.544 with the significant level 0.07. Then F count for communicative task design is 1.969 with 173 significant level. While F count for authority task design based on the interater is 2.512 with 108 signifcant level, the last F count for analytical task design is 2.180 with 143 significant level.

From this result we can say that there is no significant effect of task in students speaking quality among four types of different learning style. However even there is no significant effect but there is still relative effect of task in students speaking quality, it can be seen from the result of significant level of concrete task where is the significant level shows 0.07 near to significant category (p< 0.05).

In order to see the means plot of speaking task design on students‘ speaking quality the researchers elaboratedthe figure in this below:

Figure 4 The Students’ Speaking Quality

Note :

(16)

Figure 4 shows the means plot of students‘ speaking quality from four different tasks (task concrete, communicative, authority and analytical speaking task design). In these figures it can be seen that there is a tendency that the students with concrete learning style dominates better performance in their speaking quality in every types of speaking task design compares to another types of students with different learning style. However it also can be seen that the students with analytical learning style has better performance in their speaking quality when they are taught by using analytical speaking task design.

From all of figures about students speaking quality above, it can be concluded that there is no significant effect of task in students‘ speaking quality. However there is a tendency of particular students learning style which has better performance in their speaking quality. Additionally there is also a particular speaking task design which gives better effect in students‘ speaking quality if they are taught by using those appropriate speaking task design. It can be seen from the fourth figure of students speaking quality above where is students with analytical learning style has better performance in their speaking quality when they are taught by using analytical speaking task design that is appropriate for them in learning. The result of this finding support the previous research by (Brown 1994) who said that if teachers can give students a kind of task that is relevant to their learning styles, the performances are usually better. When the learners‘ learning styles are matched congenial with the instructional styles, their motivation, performances, and attainments will be enhanced.

(17)

This fluctuation could be seen not only in the students‘ speaking quantity but also it could be seen in the students‘ speaking quality. Even there was tendencies of concrete students have better performance in their speaking quality but this research also found out that in analytical speaking task design the students who have analytical learning style have better performance in their speaking quality compares to another type of students with different learning style.

The fluctuation might be caused by educational background of the students since they had followed English courses before. The students got more experience and interaction so they were more successful. This finding in line with Saville-Troike (2006: 177) states that Quantity and quality of L2 input and interaction are determined by social experience, and both have significant influence on ultimate success in L2 learning.

Therefore in order to avoid the domination by particular students, the teacher should create an active learning process involves listening, demonstrating, interacting, and understanding in order to engage all learners. Adult learners tend to have a need to interact and share with others. Well-designed training and educational programs use both active and passive methods. There needs to be some information transfer, but information that is only shared in a passive learning format is likely to become boring or seem irrelevant to learners. The key to teaching adults is to provide new information that is relevant and usable within a relatively short period of time. A good framework to keep in mind is the active training credo; What I hear, I forget. What I hear and see, I remember a little. What I hear, see, and ask questions about or discuss with someone else, I begin to understand. What I hear, see, discuss, and do, I acquire knowledge and skill. What I teach to another, I master. (Silberman, 1996, p. 1)

As a teacher our goal is not only to present information that learner need but also to facilitate experiences that will help them gain and master the knowledge and skills that they need to know and practice. By knowing our students‘ preference in learning it will help us to create a variety of teaching technique and help them to get better comprehending about the material which is given by us as their teacher. Moreover Dunn & Dunn (1978) said that students not only can identify their preferred learning styles, but that students also score higher on tests, have better attitudes, and are more efficient if they are taught in ways to which they can more easily relate.

(18)

mention in chapter two there are so many classification of learning style which has been used by the theorist in their research. Take for example Dornyei (2005) who categorizes learners‘ learning style based on the sensory preference. He classifies learning style into visual, auditory, Kinaesthetic and tactile learner. Besides that, there is also Howard Gardner (2008) who categorize learning style based on the students‘ multiple intelligence. He classifies the learning style into visual, musical Intelligence, verbal intelligence, logical intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, and kinesthetic intelligence.

In this research the researchers found that the learning style classifications by Willing which consist of concrete, communicative, authority and analytical learner are compatible for language learning compares to another classification of learning style from other experts. It can be seen from the result of this research where is more than one of speaking task design which was designed based on the students‘ characteristic match with students‘ preference in learning the language, such as concrete speaking task design and analytical speaking task design. It seems that Willing‘s (1988) classifications of learning style are more general comprehensive, applicable and educationally oriented, additionally Willing‘s classifications of learning style are relevant to language learning contexts. Therefore it is suggested to the English teacher to use Willing‘s classification of learning style when they want to know their students‘ preference in learning.

Conclusion and Recommendations

It can be concluded that the communicative students have greatest dominance in quantity of speaking. It can be seen where is communicative students always lead the counted of quantity such us time, turns taken and c- unit. While for quality of speaking, the concrete students have better performance than among the other students with learning style preference.

(19)

REFERENCES

Akhyak and Indramawan, A (2013). Improving The Students’ English Speaking

Competence through Story Telling ( Study in Pangeran Diponegoro Islamic College (STAI) of Nganjuk, East Java, Indonesia. International Journal of Language and Literature, Vol 1, No. 2. December 2013.

Bidabadi, F. S and Yamat, H. (2012). The Relationship between English Listening Proficiency Levels and Learning Styles.University Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Dincer, A., &Yesilyurt, S. (2013). Pre-Service English Teachers‘ Beliefs on

Speaking Skills Based on Motivational Orientations. English Language Teaching, 6(7), 88-95.

Dornyei (2005) The Psycology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acqusition. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlabaum.

Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles. Reston, VA: Reston

Gardner, Howard (2006) Changing Minds. The art and science of changing our own and other people’s minds. Boston MA.: Harvard Business School Press.

Gilakjani, A. P (2012). Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetic Learning Styles and Their Impacts on English Language Teaching. Islamic Azad University, Iran.

Hatch, E dan Farhady, H, 1981, Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics, Teheran: Rahnama Publications.

Heaton., JB. (1988). Writing English Language Test, new Edition. Longman handbooks for language teachers. London and NewYork.

Ho.Belinda. (1999) Identifying students' learning style preferences and task design. University of Hongkong

Jhaish, M.A (2010). The Relationship among Learning Styles, Language

Learning Strategies, and the Academic Achievement among the English Majors at Al-Aqsa University. The Islamic University Deanery

Nonetis‘ah (2009). ―Perbedaan Gaya Belajar Siswa, Gaya Mengajar Guru dan Lamanya Belajar Siswa di luar Sekolah Terhadap Kemampuan Berbahasa

Inggris Siswa Kelas IX SMPN 16 B. Lampung‖Unpublished Thesis. Lampung University.

Nunan (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

(20)

Shohamy, E. G. (1985). A practical handbook in language testing for the second language teaching. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University.

Silberman, M. (1996). Active Learning: 101 Strategies to Teach Any Subject. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Troike, S (2006: 177). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. University of Arizona.

Willing, K. 1988. Learning styles in adult migration education. Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Center.

Willis D. and J. Willis 2007 Doing Task-based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Windu, Y. (2009). ―Perbandingan Prestasi Menulis B.Inggris Berdasarkan Strategi

Pembelajaran dan Gaya Belajar Siswa di Politeknik Negeri Lampung‖. (Unpublished Thesis). Lampung University .

Yufrizal, H.,Sudirman, & Hasan, B.(2015).The effect of learning styles and motivation on Indonesian students‘ English achievement Indonesian EFL Journal, 1(2), 241-249 Yufrizal, H and L. Holiday. 2011. Learning styles and university students‘ language

proficiency in Indonesia. Paper presented in InternationalConference onTeaching&LearninginHigherEducation(ICTLHE 2011) Malaysia

Yufrizal, Hery (2007). Negotiation of Meaning by Indonesia EFL Learners. Bandung, PRC Book.